Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
In-game debates and rules disputes: What do you do about them?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="boredgremlin" data-source="post: 2249939" data-attributes="member: 31646"><p>Okay first i am going to address the actual issue brought up by the OP. </p><p></p><p> It is not even remotely clear that magic missiles shouldnt have a miss chance against blink. Magic missiles hit ethereal yes, but they also need a visible target. Neither spell specifically addresses the other one. And it is totally within the DMs perview to decide which has higher priority. The force affect hitting ethereal or MM needing a visible target? No player has any right at all piss and moan over a very fair judgement call on something like this. </p><p></p><p> Before some idiot screams "you have to tell them that before play", NO I DONT. In the PHB alone there are 100 pages of spells. If you think i am gonna bore myself and all the players to tears trying to explain how they all interact with each other your nuts. Live an learn. This was odviously the first time the sorcerer used MM against blink. Now he knows how they interect. There is no reasonable way he could have known that before casting so the player has no "reasonable expectations of effects" to base his decisions on. </p><p> I also aggree with Seetan where he said a 20% miss chance isnt worth arguing and derailing the game over. Anyone who did in my game would not be invited back the next week.</p><p> </p><p> Now as the allmighty RAW. It kinda sucks in some cases. Its not perfect. It wasnt perfect in 1e, it wasnt perfect in Od&d, it wasnt perfect in AD&D, it wasnt perfect in 3.0, and its not perfect now. The fact it has an errata thread proves it. It also does not do any style of gaming besides grid map hack and slash very well. If you want your game to totally follow the RAW. Then go start DMing a game by the RAW. As long as your in someone else's game your gonna have to deal with some things happening you dont like. </p><p></p><p> Personally i use the GURPS combat and skills, Most of the D&D core classes and races (modified to fit gurps), Ravenloft world setting (including madness, horror and fear saves. And modified curses and spells). And the Core magic, but with only sorcerers. </p><p>My players know this. They like the blend. They also know that sometimes things dont work like they think they will. Thats okay.</p><p></p><p> So for all the DM's dealing with people who need a "socail contract" or "reasonable expectation of rules". Just sit them down during the first session and say "The RAW is not the holy bible. Things will change even more often in the rules then the bible has over the years. The only thing you can expect is that you will roll a 1d20 and add other numbers in an attempt to beat a different number. Tell me your character concept (so they cant whine you nerfed thier concept later), and all spells will be close to thier description. Have fun".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="boredgremlin, post: 2249939, member: 31646"] Okay first i am going to address the actual issue brought up by the OP. It is not even remotely clear that magic missiles shouldnt have a miss chance against blink. Magic missiles hit ethereal yes, but they also need a visible target. Neither spell specifically addresses the other one. And it is totally within the DMs perview to decide which has higher priority. The force affect hitting ethereal or MM needing a visible target? No player has any right at all piss and moan over a very fair judgement call on something like this. Before some idiot screams "you have to tell them that before play", NO I DONT. In the PHB alone there are 100 pages of spells. If you think i am gonna bore myself and all the players to tears trying to explain how they all interact with each other your nuts. Live an learn. This was odviously the first time the sorcerer used MM against blink. Now he knows how they interect. There is no reasonable way he could have known that before casting so the player has no "reasonable expectations of effects" to base his decisions on. I also aggree with Seetan where he said a 20% miss chance isnt worth arguing and derailing the game over. Anyone who did in my game would not be invited back the next week. Now as the allmighty RAW. It kinda sucks in some cases. Its not perfect. It wasnt perfect in 1e, it wasnt perfect in Od&d, it wasnt perfect in AD&D, it wasnt perfect in 3.0, and its not perfect now. The fact it has an errata thread proves it. It also does not do any style of gaming besides grid map hack and slash very well. If you want your game to totally follow the RAW. Then go start DMing a game by the RAW. As long as your in someone else's game your gonna have to deal with some things happening you dont like. Personally i use the GURPS combat and skills, Most of the D&D core classes and races (modified to fit gurps), Ravenloft world setting (including madness, horror and fear saves. And modified curses and spells). And the Core magic, but with only sorcerers. My players know this. They like the blend. They also know that sometimes things dont work like they think they will. Thats okay. So for all the DM's dealing with people who need a "socail contract" or "reasonable expectation of rules". Just sit them down during the first session and say "The RAW is not the holy bible. Things will change even more often in the rules then the bible has over the years. The only thing you can expect is that you will roll a 1d20 and add other numbers in an attempt to beat a different number. Tell me your character concept (so they cant whine you nerfed thier concept later), and all spells will be close to thier description. Have fun". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
In-game debates and rules disputes: What do you do about them?
Top